 |
| 
sean_m
Registered Member
Date Joined Jan 2002
Total Posts : 17
| Posted 1/24/2002 4:18 PM (GMT -6) |   | This one's less philosophical than my last question, but I think it's important. If God doesn't know the future completely, how can one rely on God's guidance? It seems like he can mistakenly lead us into the heart of evil, and not be able to deliver us from it. The other two options seem less attractive; either God is capricious, or we have no way of discerning wither anything is the will of God. I do have a second question, but it would better go in a different section...
Blessings,
Sean
| | Back to Top | | |
 |
still_unsure
Registered Member
Date Joined Jun 2001
Total Posts : 54
| Posted 1/25/2002 4:10 AM (GMT -6) | | Hi Sean:
I think you must make a distiction between "...God doesn't know the future completely" and "God knows the future as partly settled and partly as possibilities". I like to think of the future as a many-branched tree. God understands all possible outcomes (hence knows the future completely) but doesn't determine which particular path it takes. He is equally prepared for ALL eventualities, no matter what choice you may make. At least, this is my understanding of open theism. Makes God even BIGGER, IMHO.
Blessings,
Rob
| | Back to Top | | |
|
sean_m
Registered Member
Date Joined Jan 2002
Total Posts : 17
| Posted 1/25/2002 6:05 AM (GMT -6) | | quote:
I think you must make a distiction between "...God doesn't know the future completely" and "God knows the future as partly settled and partly as possibilities". I like to think of the future as a many-branched tree. God understands all possible outcomes (hence knows the future completely) but doesn't determine which particular path it takes. He is equally prepared for ALL eventualities, no matter what choice you may make. At least, this is my understanding of open theism.
Forgive me, but your answer doesn't really convince me. I too look at the future as a multi branched tree, but here's the logical dilemma I'm facing.
1) I perform action X which God thinks it is best for me to perform.
2) action X being best iff (if and only if) person B performs action Y. Furthermore, if Y fails to perform B, action X will be the worst possible action.
3) Person B performs to fail action Y
4) Therefore, action X is not the best
5) Therefore, I haven't been guided by God to the best action. Furthermore, God has led me to the worst possible action.
That's the gist of the logical dilemma I'm facing. I'm sorry, but I need to be honest with both my mind and spirit.
Sean
| | Back to Top | | |
|
still_unsure
Registered Member
Date Joined Jun 2001
Total Posts : 54
| Posted 1/25/2002 7:01 AM (GMT -6) | | Hi Sean:
I see your dilemma more clearly now. Pardon my misunderstanding of your original post, I'm a little slow to pick things up. 
I think there are two posssible replies to your question.
God's inclinations for you would not be conditioned just by person B's action Y, but by peson B's possible actions X,Y,Z...
He also, while knowing person B has however many possible actions, will assign to each action a probability of it's being performed. No one can dispute that God's knowledge of each of us is perfect. Therefore it is likely that his predicted probabilities will be accurate. But, of course, as free creatures there is the possibility of our actions "surprising" Him. Regardless, I think, given the nature of our reality, that we have no other hope than to place our trust in Him. Who else has His pespective and predictive power? Perhaps you are correct that there is a possibility(however remote) of His will being foiled by the will of others He has entrusted with freedom.(indeed, most open theists would concede this point as scripture has instances of this very thing)
You are never wrong to trust in Him, if He leads you to a place, He will surely lead you out again! This all shows the incredible dynamics that His creation includes. What a WONDERful God!
blessings,
Rob
| | Back to Top | | |
|
Starkman
Registered Member
Date Joined Oct 2001
Total Posts : 1747
| Posted 1/26/2002 10:08 AM (GMT -6) | | Hey Sean,
Here's a simple post I keep handy for just these kinds of questions. Hope it helps
G0D THE MASTER CHESS PLAYER:
God is the master chess player. Not just a master, but THE master player. By master I mean He knows every possible move that can be made, every possible combination of moves that there can be. No matter what you move, He already knows all the moves that can result from that, all the choices available.
Now, let's say you're playing God a game of chess and it's your move. You should move the rook, and God knows that, but you move the pawn instead. God could say to Himself (so to speak), "Well, you should have moved the rook. Guess I'll win the game now". And supposing you moved the rook as you should have? God would say something like "He moved the right piece. Good for him. Guess I'll win the game now". See, it's neither here nor there which piece you choose to move; God will win anyway.
And so it is with us in relationship with God. He knows our hearts, our thoughts, our complete make up. He knows everything that there is to know. No matter what I do, He knows that that was a possibility and is never caught off guard; disapointed or made glad, perhaps, but never caught off guard.
For the conversation,
Starkman
Edited by - Starkman on 01/26/2002 3:09:12 PM | | Back to Top | | |
|
GregBoyd
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 1818
| Posted 1/26/2002 7:32 PM (GMT -6) | | Sean: If God doesn't know the future completely, how can one rely on God's guidance? It seems like he can mistakenly lead us into the heart of evil, and not be able to deliver us from it.
Doc: Sean, I'd ask you, if God DOES "know the future completely" ("future" here means "what shall come to pass" as opposed to "what may come to pass") how can you trust him for guidance? Look, if God knows that tomorrow you shall (say) give into temptation and have sex with someone, WHAT CONSOLATION IS THAT? If its settled fact, its going to happen, and there's no "room" for God to guide you.
What we need to trust God's guidance is for him to see what MAY come to pass. If God sees that you will give into temptation IF you don't alter your present course, NOW God can "guide you" in the proper way. To ask God to guide us presupposes that the future is NOT exhaustively settled.
This is the view that the open view offers.
I'd encourage you to read my article on "The Infinite Intelligience of God" found on this web site. I argue there that NO providential control is lost -- and much is gained -- by embracing the view that the future is partly open.
Blessings
Doc
"Three is the magic number, oh yes it is, it's the Magic Number" - De La Soul | | Back to Top | | |
|
sean_m
Registered Member
Date Joined Jan 2002
Total Posts : 17
| Posted 1/26/2002 8:23 PM (GMT -6) | | I guess y'all have a point. I probably should think my objections through more before I post them. Thanks, y'all :)
Sean
| | Back to Top | | |
|
GregBoyd
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 1818
| Posted 1/27/2002 2:32 AM (GMT -6) | | Sean, one of the purposes of this discussion room is to think through questions together. Dialogue helps us gain clarity. So it was and is perfectly appropriate to raise questions and objections you haven't yet thought through completely. Thanks for inviting us in on your question. Don't hesitate to do it again.
Blessings
Doc
"Three is the magic number, oh yes it is, it's the Magic Number" - De La Soul | | Back to Top | | |
|
Bob Hill
Registered Member
Date Joined Aug 2001
Total Posts : 98
| Posted 3/7/2002 7:26 AM (GMT -6) | | Sean,
I know how you feel. I believed God knew the whole future exhaustively at one time. I found out my thinking was the result of the great influence of Greek, then neo-platonic thought, then Augustinian Greek neo-platonic thought which influenced everyone. Then, the reformation was a return to Augustinian thought.
I'm continuously purging my mind and looking at Scripture with a different perspective.
In Christ,
Bob Hill
| | Back to Top | | |
|
GregBoyd
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 1818
| Posted 3/10/2002 1:23 PM (GMT -6) | | Bob: I believed God knew the whole future exhaustively at one time.
Doc: I know what you're saying Bob, but I wonder if this is the best way to say it. To deny that "God knows the whole future exhaustively" seems to suggest that God only knows PART of the future PARTIALLY. But its not like theres "a future" out there that God only partly knows. He knows everything exhaustively. He's omniscient. For this reason I think it best to say that God knows the future exhaustively, but not as exhaustively definite, for what is real is that the future is NOW partly indefinite. And since God knows reality perfectly, he knows it as partly indefinite.
What do you think?
Doc
"Three is the magic number, oh yes it is, it's the Magic Number" - De La Soul | | Back to Top | | |
|
Bob Hill
Registered Member
Date Joined Aug 2001
Total Posts : 98
| Posted 3/19/2002 9:32 PM (GMT -6) | | Dear Greg,
You are right. I did not clarify what I really believe at the present time.
I believe God knows everything that He has determined to happen. For instance the corporate body of Christ will be holy and blameless.
I believe God knows everything that is probable and all the probabilities for every situation. That's mind blowing.
I believe God even knows the least probable event that might happen, but He knows it as the least probable event. Sometimes God is surprised that man takes the worst, and yes, the least probable choice sometimes. There are examples in His Word where He thought and even said it would happen, but it didn't.
In Christ,
Bob Hill
| | Back to Top | | |
|
Jake
Registered Member
Date Joined Dec 2001
Total Posts : 17
| Posted 4/2/2002 5:49 PM (GMT -6) | |
maybe this isn't the best thread to post this on, but i just had a quick thought:
I think that open theism is probably the most correct, and it is also the most maleable (sp?). That seems to be a bit of a problem for me. Everything seems to be able to be bent to fit very nicely within the framework of open theism. it seems almost as if open theism molds and shapes God into the way that we think and approve of him operating. but maybe that's the way it's been all along since the ancient greeks........
thoughts??
Jake
| | Back to Top | | |
|
Tom
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 10353
| Posted 4/2/2002 6:43 PM (GMT -6) | | Just a quick word to to Doc, first, then to Jake.
Doc-
Just wanted to agree with you about how careful open theists need to be in describing God's exhaustive foreknowledge. I think many times openness folk are not careful on this point and they miscommunicate. Actually, I've noticed that Pinnock does this now and again. It's not so helpful.
Jake-
quote:
I think that open theism is probably the most correct, and it is also the most maleable (sp?). That seems to be a bit of a problem for me. Everything seems to be able to be bent to fit very nicely within the framework of open theism.
I see your point, but for me there's still plenty of mystery and unanswered questions to keep me humble and tentative. I agree that open theism accounts for things better than other views, but it still leaves (in my mind) some things unanswered. I'm crazy about the open view, but I'm...
...still trembling!
Tom
| | Back to Top | | |
|
Newcomb
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 116
| Posted 4/8/2002 1:41 PM (GMT -6) | | sean_m starts out with the question, 'if God doesn't know the future exhaustively, then how can he guide us?' But the question should be; if God does know the future exhaustively, why should he guide us? There is no guiding possible if the future is exhaustively known.
This, in a way, points to the problem of the classical school. You intuitively think God should be able to guide (he does), but if the classical view is correct, then he is out of a job. The Greeks painted a complete (but wrong) picture of the ultimate being but Christianity only picked up part of it because the whole picture was repugnant, a being who never moves, is outside of time, etc. So we ended up with these conflicts. If God exhaustively knows the future there is no further involvement possible because this would alter what is already known, planned, whatever the belief is.
But more than that sean begs the question of whether or not God leads us on individual choices. His leading on most things seems to be telling us to make good choices and wide decisions, no whether to turn left or right at such and such an intersection.
God isn't responsible for our decisions and our decision's moral and ethical results are not contingent on someone else's decisions either. If I choice the best choice, then I am ethically right regardless of the next person's choices turning mine into a bad end. The end does not justify (or nullify) the means. I am responsible for making the right decision at any given point.
Also, we don't determine the will of God by the results. This is a form of pragmatism.
Jake makes an interesting point that shows a classical view defense of the irrational:
quote:
Everything seems to be able to be bent to fit very nicely within the framework of open theism. it seems almost as if open theism molds and shapes God into the way that we think and approve of him operating.
A defense of classical theism has always been "God's ways are not our ways" as if to say that unless the theology runs against "human" logic, then there is something wrong with it.
Our theology should indeed be "bent" or formed by what the Word of God tells us about him and not twisted to form a preset mold that we have imported from Greece.
The fact the we seem to be discovering that we are made closer to God's image than we previously accepted should not surprise us, rather it should please us that God cared enough to give more of his qualities than we expected to this new being called 'human.'
OV does not describe God by human terms, rather it describes God as he describes himself. It does not make God into man's image, it describes what is really seen in the scriptures without filtering out important aspects through a Grecian formula. This leads us the question; which is making God into man's image, describing him as he describes himself, or describing him to the ideals set by the Greeks (or others expectations). Just because they seem lofty doesn't mean they are right. Just because they seem so much more than man-like doesn't mean they are right either.
All of us with a classical view background (who doesn't?) need to examine our arguments to see where that 'closed view' affects the way we argue a point. Sometimes it is real subtle and we hear old arguments and don't realize the irrationality of them because they are familiar.
"Neuk'em" | | Back to Top | | |
|
Matthew Timothy Short
Huh?
Date Joined Apr 2002
Total Posts : 635
| Posted 4/11/2002 4:59 PM (GMT -6) | | "…Take the doctrines (or teachings) of God's foreknowledge and determination separately and look at what the Bible says about each of them. Proving that men have free wills does not prove that God does not have exhaustive (or infinite) foreknowledge." - Abbie
"God knows all things that exist; the question is whether the future exists (predetermined) or not." - Obadiah
"Therefore, in Acts 15:18, God knows all of His works, 1) Some as absolute 2) Some as possible 3) Some as doubtful." - Bob
"For what can scape the eye Of God all-seeing, or deceive his heart Omniscient?" - Milton
Infinite foreknowledge, is the unlimited awareness of all actualities, before only one literally occurs? Prescience or foresight of all possible realities does not determine which one, ‘possibility’, will exist; it simply knows only one will, and God is very aware of its existence, before it actually occurs.
Although, all of humanity throughout the ages is a confusing mixture, of an infinite collection of possibilities of existence, for every individual, each wandering any and everywhere: A literal Omnium-gatherum-vagant.
God, infinitely wise, with universal knowledge; knows all things possible as possible, certain as certain, contingent as contingent, and all things foreordained as predestined conclusion.
God, with an infinite foreknowledge, without fatalistic determinism, remains free to make decisions and alter purposes according to His own will and wisdom; He is not a prisoner of His own foreknowledge.
That I am the desire of God and His being; loved and born to love, this is the miracle of life; Gods creation.
Or in other words,
The Knowledge of events before they occur throughout the ages, is a confusing mixture of certainty and an infinite collection of contingent possibilities, wandering through time: A literal Omnium-gatherum-vagant.
| | Back to Top | | |
|
PotOnWheel
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 9890
| Posted 4/11/2002 6:38 PM (GMT -6) | | Newcomb, the "grecian formula" is a cute line. But you might find that what comes down to you under that label traveled through the hands of those like Augustine, who used Latin, and didn't know the Greeks. Thought it worth keeping straight.
PoW
| | Back to Top | | |
|
GregBoyd
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 1818
| Posted 4/14/2002 2:56 AM (GMT -6) | | 1) How can we trust a God who doesn't know the future as exhaustively definite? As Newcomb notes, the question should rather be, what is there to trust God for if he DOES know the future as exhaustively definite? Say tonight God knows you shall be kidnapped, dismembered in a snuff film and then soked in boiling oil. How does God knowing that this will occur as a certainty help you? Most people who ask this question really have in mind something like this: if God knows a terrible event in the future he can perhaps WARN ME and GUIDE ME to avoid it. But note, in this case God obviously DIDN'T know the future as exhaustively definite He knew it as a possibility, which is the only reason why he could WARN you about it and help you AVOID IT. In other words, the view that enables you to "trust God " is the open view, NOT the classical view!
2 About Jake's comment on the flexibility of the open view: how is this different from saying that the open view is a good theory because it fits all the facts? One requirement of good theories is that they are flexible relative to the evidence they seek to explain. The view that covers the most ground -- can be adopted to the most facts -- is usually considered the most likely to be true.
It is an odd criticism -- one I've heard several times -- that the open view is suspect because it fits all the evidence.
Think about it.
Blessings
Doc
"Three is the magic number, oh yes it is, it's the Magic Number" - De La Soul
Edited by - GregBoyd on 04/14/2002 07:57:37 AM | | Back to Top | | |
|
chambes
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 41
| Posted 4/14/2002 3:19 AM (GMT -6) | | quote:
It is an odd criticism -- one I've heard several times -- that the open view is suspect because it fits all the evidence.
This is a very common criticism for scientific theories, especially theories that are hard to prove, such as those in cosmology. But, I think it's being misapplied here.
The reasoning is this: a theory can't be a valid theory if it can't be disproved. If someone thinks up a theory that can encompass any hypothetical situation, it's not a valid theory. So, since Open View seems to be able to fit all the facts, it can't be a valid theory is what the critics are saying. But, this criticism method doesn't distiniguish between actual facts and hypothetical facts. If a theory fits all actual facts but cannot account for realistic hypothetical facts, it is still a valid theory. I'm sure there are hypothetical facts that would disprove Open View, but I don't have the time to think of any good ones right now. If this is the case, Open View is a valid theory even though it seems to fit all the actual facts.
Hope I explained this well
chambes
"He is no fool who gives what he cannot keep to get what he cannot lose." ~Jim Elliot | | Back to Top | | |
|
Jake
Registered Member
Date Joined Dec 2001
Total Posts : 17
| Posted 4/14/2002 8:47 AM (GMT -6) | |
the objection that i raised in my previous post was one actually brought to me by a friend. i find open theism correct for exactly the reasons you presented, that it seems to be the most true and covers the most ground.
another objection brought to me about open theism is that it bends God into what we want him to be. that open theism has an idea about how we think God should work, and how we want him to work, and then open theism finds scripture that can be bent to fit within this view. i'm not really sure how to respond to this objection, but any suggestions would help.
Jake
| | Back to Top | | |
|
Jake
Registered Member
Date Joined Dec 2001
Total Posts : 17
| Posted 4/25/2002 5:27 AM (GMT -6) | |
anybody out there? it's been awhile, but if anyone could give a suggestion as to how i could answer the question in my previous post that would be great.
Jake
| | Back to Top | | |
|
alwyn
Registered Member
Date Joined Jan 2002
Total Posts : 30
| Posted 4/25/2002 11:06 PM (GMT -6) | | Hi Jake...a short suggestive answer, :)
Jake wrote:
another objection brought to me about open theism is that it bends God into what we want him to be. that open theism has an idea about how we think God should work, and how we want him to work, and then open theism finds scripture that can be bent to fit within this view.
I'd think that more 'meat' needs to be added into it. Failing an actual and specific Scriptural/philosophical/experiential(?) problem being raised, it sounds suspiciously like a 'slur' of some kind.
Notice how - in the para above - we could substitute 'open theism' with any kind of theology (Calvinism, Molinism, etc.) with the same result. As a rule of thumb, any objection which can be universally applied isn't much of an objection.
Perhaps it'll help by going back to your friend or source and asking exactly what he/she means.
Warmly,
Alwyn
| | Back to Top | | |
| Forum Information | Currently it is Monday, November 09, 2026 3:02 PM (GMT -6)
There are a total of 97,718 posts in 6,040 threads.
In the last 3 days there were 0 new threads and 0 reply posts. View Active Threads
|
Forum powered by dotNetBB v2.42EC SP3
dotNetBB © 2000-2026 |
|
|